Kevin Reiner, 121 South Main Street, indicated that he was designing the interior of this home, but needed to make some exterior changes to improve the interior flow. This application proposed the removal of the existing sliding door to be replaced with a French door and move the existing window. The intent was to recycle the window and sashes to maintain the historical feel. He indicated that he hoped to install a Colby & Colby true divided light, all wood French door, but a clad door could be purchased.

Mr. Burriss asked if the doors would be true French door or just French door styled door with an astragal through the transom and would there be trim. He also asked the type of hardware that would be used. Mr. Reiner indicated that the door would be a true French door with astragal, but the door had not been ordered yet. There would be a two inch architectural element frame. Mr. Reiner indicated that the hardware would be an almond-shaped knob of oil rubbed bronze to maintain the historical look.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-145:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? The Planning Commission concluded yes that the project was consistent with other projects approved in the area.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes that the proposed architectural changes were more historically accurate than the existing structure and thereby contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes as the French door was more historically appropriate than the existing door.

Planner Terry advised the Commission that a variance was needed for this sign as this request exceeds the maximum number of signs permitted by Code.

Mr. Burriss asked is when the existing “Pizza” was on did that not indicate that the restaurant was open. Ms. Englefield indicated that the inside of the restaurant was so dark that additional signage was needed to let people know when they were open. The “Open” sign would be in addition to the “Pizza” sign. Ms. Englefield indicated that Elms would be willing to remove the wooden letter wall “Elms Pizza” sign from the building.

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign was consistent with other structures, but not all structures, in the district.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as putting the second neon sign in the other window would bring balance to the façade and be compatible with the historic nature of that building.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes as the existing “Pizza” sign has been there for many years and the two signs will be an enhancement more than just the single sign.

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-149:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE due to the location of the business and the existing building materials.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE as the applicant had a current business in that location and the new sign could help improve business.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. Two Planning Commission members agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial, while Mr. Hawk felt is was substantial.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. Mr. Ryan stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE as the property owner purchased the property prior to the Code.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The Planning Commission agreed that this application required a variance.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE that justice would be done.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and was not an unreasonable request.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the Planning Commission indicated that the applicant would be required to remove the wooden letter “Elms Pizza” wall sign.

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-149 with the variance to increase the maximum number of signs from four to five and to require the removal of the wooden “Elms Pizza” wall sign. Second by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-149: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

113 East Elm Street – Elms Pizza Parlor- Application #2011-150

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

Mr. Ryan asked if the sign would be framed with cedar and placed in the location of the existing “Elms Pizza” wooden wall letters. He also asked what color the trim would be painted. Ms. Englefield indicated that the sign would be trimmed in cedar and painted either white or green. It would replace the wooden “Elms Pizza” wall sign.

Mr. Burriss asked if the top of the frame would be aligned consistent with the other windows. Ms. Englefield indicated that the intent was to make it consistent. The Commission advised that the hours of operation sign may need to be lowered to accommodate this new sign. Ms. Englefield agreed.

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village

District? The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is consistent with other signs

in the district and will have the appearance of a permanent sign.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the

Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as framing the sign will

make the sign similar to existing building architecture and maintain the historic

character of the district.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes as this business has been a presence in the community for the past 27 years.

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-150:

a. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE as the applicant had a current business in that location for 27 years and the sign will help tell a story.

b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1) Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE as the applicant had a current business in that location and the new sign could help improve business.

(2) Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial as they are removing one sign and replacing it with another.

(3) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

(4) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE as the property owner purchased the property prior to the Code.

(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the code requirements.

(7) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE as this signage is being installed to help promote business.

d. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the Planning Commission specified that the sign would have to be framed in cedar, painted green, and change annually to reflect the number of years in business. The wooden letter “Elms Pizza” wall sign would also need to be removed.

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-150 with the variance to increase the maximum number of signs from five to six, frame the sign in cedar, paint green to match other trim and permission to change the sign annually to reflect the number of years in business. Second by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-150: Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no). Motion failed 2-1. The application will be tabled until the January 9, 2012 meeting.

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a neon window sign.

As the applicant did not appear, Mr. Hawk moved to table the application until later in the meeting as the applicant was not in attendance or to the January 9, 2012 meeting, if the applicant does not arrive. Second by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 3-0. (The applicant did not attend the meeting. Application #2011-151 was tabled to the January 9, 2012 meeting.

204 West Broadway – Denison University- Application #2011-152

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a back-up generator to be located behind the Ace Morgan Theatre to service both Monomoy House and Monomoy Annex.

Art Chonko, representing Denison University, advised the Commission that the University wanted to install a generator to service Monomoy House and the Annex. The generator would be installed next to an existing electrical unit between the buildings. The unit would be hidden from any street views, but could be seen from an adjoining parking lot. The unit being purchased will have sound enclosure included with the unit.

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village

District? The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is consistent with other

structures approved previously in the district.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as the generator will help preserve the historic structure from weather and electrical events.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes as it will help preserve and contribute to the livability of the structure.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes as it will protect and enhance a major Village historical structure.

Application #2011-145: Kevin Reiner for John and Maria Bishop; 121 South Main Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-145 as indicated.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-149 as indicated.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-152 as submitted by the applicant.